' WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.--- This revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14-6-2014, whereby learned appellate Court disposed of the appeal of petitioners by giving period of 15 days for vacating the quarter in question by maintaining the judgment and decree of trial court dated 28-4-2014.
2. Muhammad Asif, the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and in alternate for retaining the possession of the suit quarter against the respondents. The respondents appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement and they also filed application for rejection of plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. The learned trial court on acceptance of application of respondents dismissed the suit on 28-4-2014. The petitioner preferred appeal and learned appellate court passed the impugned judgment, hence the instant revision petition.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. There is no denial of the fact that Muhammad Asif, the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners, was a government servant and was allotted the suit quarter but during life time filed a suit for perpetual injunction declaration and in alternate the possession of the suit quarter as respondents were trying to get dispossess the government servants under the garb of new policy notification dated 1-6-2000. The respondents/defendants filed written statement and along with the same filed an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C.
5. Admittedly, the son of deceased/plaintiff has been appointed against deceased son quota, which is 100% vide appointment order dated 14-12-2013 in BPS-7 as Junior Clerk. According to Government notification dated 20-2-1992, where, deceased allottee son/daughter in service is allowed to retain the accommodation, subject to his/her entitlement.
6. It is also brought on record that widow of said deceased allottee/plaintiff is also civil servant and is posted within District Abbottabad.
7. All these facts are on the file of this revision petition but, not annexed with the plaint, thus requires recording of evidence. In these changed circumstances Civil Court is having the alternate jurisdiction and having no other alternate remedy, it is the duty of the civil court to thrash out the dispute and rights of the citizens government servants in a parental way and not in a summary way.
8. This court, in view of changed policy dated 1-6-2010 remanded number of cases to the trial court for recording of evidence hence, the instant one is also remanded to the trial court for framing of issues on the points raised above, record evidence in this respect, without commenting on the remarks of appellate court as the same were recorded in absence of the counsel. Parties are directed to appear before Civil Judge-IX, Abbottabad on 7-11-2014. The trial court is further directed to decide the lis within three months positively.
9. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.